------- Additional Comments From aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-05
13:36 -------
Subject: Re: [PR c++/20103] failure to gimplify constructors for addressable
types
On Mar 4, 2005, Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> + foo ((B){x});
> I don't think (B){x} should be an lvalue, C99 notwithstanding. B(3)
> is not be an lavalue; I don't see why "(B){x}" should be.
Works for me. We can always extend it later, should the ISO C++
committee make a decision different from ours.
Patch will follow hopefully later today.
> Has there been any discussion of this in the ISO committee? Or prior
> are in other compilers? Including previous versions of G++?
Not that I know.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20103
